Is Reformulation Still a Suitable Goal for Sugary Beverage Taxes? A Response to Recent Commentaries

Document Type : Correspondence

Authors

1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

2 School of Global Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

3 MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Keywords


In 2019, one year after the UK government implemented a sugary beverage tax (SBT) known as the “Soft Drink Industry Levy” (SDIL), we interviewed 18 marketing experts.1 We explored how soft drink companies adapt their marketing in response to a SBT, specifically by adjusting products, their placement, promotion, and pricing (the “4Ps”). The framework we developed shows how companies actively assess their context in order to inform decisions about marketing, meaning that: (i) company reactions to a SBT could be pre-empted if enough is known about these contextual factors from the outset; and (ii) SBTs could be designed to mitigate the potentially health-undermining reactions of market leaders. ...(Read more...)

  1. Forde H, Penney TL, White M, Levy L, Greaves F, Adams J. Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(11):2618-2629. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.5465
  2. Segal AB, Olney J, Case KK, Sassi F. The benefits and challenges of taxing sugar in a small island state: an interrupted time series analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2022;19(1):69. doi:1186/s12966-022-01308-x
  3. Alvarado M, Penney TL, Unwin N, Murphy MM, Adams J. Evidence of a health risk ‘signalling effect’ following the introduction of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Food Policy. 2021;102:102104. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2021.102104
  4. Boachie MK, Goldstein S, Kruger P, Ng SW, Hofman KJ, Thsehla E. Beverage industry's advertising expenditures and airtimes in South Africa from 2013 to 2019 target children and families. J Public Health Res. 2023;12(2):22799036231168207. doi:1177/22799036231168207
  5. Zenone M, Kenworthy N. Pre-emption strategies to block taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: a framing analysis of Facebook advertising in support of Washington state initiative-1634. Glob Public Health. 2022;17(9):1854-1867. doi:1080/17441692.2021.1977971
  6. Lacy-Nichols J. Corporate harm minimisation: promises and perils: Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7649. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7649
  7. Hangoma P, Chewe M. Should we worry about spillover effects of sugar sweetened beverage taxation policies? Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7793. doi:34172/ijhpm.2023.7793
  8. Murukutla N, Cotter T, Kotov A. The instrumental role of strategic communication to counter industry marketing responses to sugary drink taxes: Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7685. doi:34172/ijhpm.2023.7685
  9. Lauber K. Framing marketing responses to national regulation: the four Ps in transnational corporate political discourse: Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7618. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7618
  10. Chilet-Rosell E, Lumbreras B. Contextual factors that may impact on the development and implementation of the sugary drinks policy: Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7713. doi:34172/ijhpm.2023.7713
  11. Sparks L. Marketing responses to the taxation of soft drinks: Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7612. doi:34172/ijhpm.2023.7612
  12. Cornelsen L, Cuevas S. Policy vs business: well-designed health-related food policy should not let industry marketing undermine its intended effects: Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7640. doi:34172/ijhpm.2023.7640
  13. Ilicic J, Brennan S, Cullerton K. Additional marketing responses to a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7638. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7638
  14. Gonçalves J. Companies' responses to a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: implications for research: Comment on "Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7619. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7619
  15. World Cancer Research Fund International. NOURISHING Database. https://policydatabase.wcrf.org/nourishing-moving-search. Accessed November 29, 2023
  16. HM Revenue & Customs. Soft Drinks Industry Levy. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/soft-drinks-industry-levy/soft-drinks-industry-levy. Published 2016. Accessed November 29, 2023.
  17. Scarborough P, Adhikari V, Harrington RA, et al. Impact of the announcement and implementation of the UK soft drinks industry levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks in the UK, 2015-19: a controlled interrupted time series analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(2):e1003025. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1003025
  18. World Health Organization (WHO). Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners: WHO Guideline. WHO; 2023.
  19. Touvier M, da Costa Louzada ML, Mozaffarian D, Baker P, Juul F, Srour B. Ultra-processed foods and cardiometabolic health: public health policies to reduce consumption cannot wait. BMJ. 2023;383:e075294. doi:1136/bmj-2023-075294
  20. Pagliai G, Dinu M, Madarena MP, Bonaccio M, Iacoviello L, Sofi F. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr. 2021;125(3):308-318. doi:1017/s0007114520002688
  21. Cordova R, Viallon V, Fontvieille E, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: a multinational cohort study. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2023;35:100771. doi:1016/j.lanepe.2023.100771
  22. Qureshi W. Coca-Cola Overhauls Pack Designs to Utilise Iconic Red Branding. Packaging News website. https://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/markets/drinks/coca-cola-overhauls-pack-designs-to-utilise-iconic-red-branding-20-04-2016. Accessed November 24, 2023.
  23. Alvarado M, Marten R, Garcia L, Kwamie A, White M, Adams J. Using systems thinking to generate novel research questions for the evaluation of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation policies. BMJ Glob Health. 2023;8(Suppl 8):e012060. doi:1136/bmjgh-2023-012060
  24. Adams J, Hofman K, Moubarac JC, Thow AM. Public health response to ultra-processed food and drinks. BMJ. 2020;369:m2391. doi:1136/bmj.m2391
  25. HM Government. Introducing Further Advertising Restrictions on TV and Online for Products High in Fat, Sugar and Salt (HFSS). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/795412/hfss-advertising-consultation-10-april-2019.pdf. Published March 18, 2019.
  • Receive Date: 22 November 2023
  • Revise Date: 30 November 2023
  • Accept Date: 02 December 2023
  • First Publish Date: 02 December 2023